A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by northcape » Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:31 am

Oh no, there we go again. So be it.

1) The statement (or impression) that the interpretation "is consistent" with photos (or films) is non-sensical. We don't have any timing or other relevant AND robust meta-information on the photos and films, so it is not possible to make any judgment on the consistency.
2) For the film, it is even worse. There is no knowldge on the timing, speed, or correct order of the sequences. So how can this film be used to validate the correctness of the interpretation?
3) It is circular reasoning, because the film and photos are used to come up with the interpretation, and later it is argued that the interpretation is confirmed by the film and the photos.
4) Just because somebody explains his/her circular reasoning, it does not make it more scientific.
5) Other people recognize the futility of the idea to derive a highly detailed interpretation based on the extremely sparse data available. That is why they don't bother to create another fantasy map. But this of course does not mean that the other fantasy map is valid.
6) Coming back to "consistency", I agree that the map in question is self-consistent. But it is also self-consistent if I say that some of photos are taken from gunnery exercises in home waters, and create a track chart with fantasy times and dates. Now of course I would not state this, but it should highlight the very speculative (and rather non-informative) nature of "self-consistent" interpretations in the context of historic reconstruction.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1442
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Wed Jan 29, 2020 7:57 am

wadinga wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:56 am
..., there is a lot of "if only" required to get the photographer to the right place.
...
Luckily it's possible to deduce the place of the photographer of NH69729.
Image
In this picture - taken shortly before NH69729 - one can see a short stancion, which doesn't go up to the third chain. There is only one place where two or three of these stancions were used: between the crane and the 10.5 cm midship mount.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by hans zurbriggen » Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:40 am

Hello,
to Mr.northcape:
1) Timing of photos is determined in some cases based from Prinz Eugen map, from other evidences and from correlation to other photos.
2) Timing of film-start is clear from what Mr. Bonomi & Mr. Virtuani have explained several times. Please see "PoW splash" thread for a wrap-up. Film-end can move of maximum 30 seconds only depending from film speed adjustment.
3) No circular reasoning. Only interpretation of evidences (documents, accounts, photos, film) in a consistent way. Sound method behind, published, reproduced on web sites and accepted by most people.
4) It makes it an acceptable reconstruction. Without alternative, Mr. Bonomi work has to be accepted, for me at least.
5) No, I don't think so. They don't try because it is very difficult or impossible to build complete and consistent maps different from Mr. Bonomi. Please show me a recent map that can be considered alternative.
6) To say that, you must have a proof. Without evidences the photos have to be attributed to Denmark Strait battle because so say Germans.

I agree with Mr. Virtuani writing (see his 3rd post page 12): 'history is collecting available data, validating them, reconstructing what happened and finally giving an interpretation to crude facts (that, actually, happened in a fully determined way, without any "ambiguity" for a very precise purpose)'. History is always an interpretation of some facts: all facts are matching the reconstruction in Mr. Bonomi logical interpretation.


to Mr. Nilsson writing: 'There is only one place where two or three of these stancions were used: between the crane and the 10.5 cm midship mount.'
I agree with you about the place (number 1 in image). I wonder if another place (number 2) can be a candidate. I have not found a good photo of place 2 to check stanchions height when boat was not on board and railing is installed:
PrinzEugen chains.png
PrinzEugen chains.png (91.97 KiB) Viewed 466 times
hans

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2105
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by wadinga » Wed Jan 29, 2020 11:04 am

Fellow Contributors,

Can we be clear whether we are speculating about a location on the Main Deck or on the higher deck for these chained sections? A number of boat stowage locations are indicated on plans of this higher deck, where boat hulls overhang the deck edge, but in war service these fire hazard conveniences appear to be "landed" for the duration. The Philadelphia pictures to my mind show continuous metal rail through these upper deck locations and the crutches for the boat keels are gone. They show a hinged three sided platform for the forward mount with the chains on it too. What the situation was in 1941 remains unclear.

Main deck location seems much more likely to me, as outboard deployment of torpedo tubes requires removable stanchions, likely lowered at "action stations". Also sections where gangplanks may be deployed during harbour calls. The alignment of top chain and horizon in the photo Herr Nilsson has provided indicates a lower POV for the photographer, either crouching or using a waist-high TLR camera. This low viewpoint might hide Main Deck obstructions as seen from upper deck, or this may be shot from the Main Deck. What cannot be seen is any sign of PG's wake which would be spreading away from the hull if the photographer were looking astern at 45 degrees at maybe 28knots in sea conditions which were throwing spray over the forward turrets.

The comments about "circular arguments" and consistency are perfectly valid. Speculative courses for PG and Bismarck cannot inform what is seen in the photographs. Trawling through internet images has brought up beautiful 3D renditions in exquisite detail of PG including handrails, but they are all "fantasy" in as much as they are created, like Mr Bonomi's map through interpretation. What is real about them and what is creative interpolation is unclear. Their detail is complex and consistent, but that does not mean it is real. If some of the evidence does not fit the construct it is the construct which is wrong, not the evidence.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by hans zurbriggen » Wed Jan 29, 2020 11:34 am

Hello,
to Mr. Wadinga:
Mr. Nilsson has posted a very interesting image showing the short stanchions and place number 1 for them. I'm trying to locate other places (see number 2). If cameraman was the same for the two photos (NH69729 and the one posted by Mr. Nilsson), then emplacement should be on the boat deck. I have no evidence of short stanchions on the weather deck.
You wrote: ' If some of the evidence does not fit the construct it is the construct which is wrong, not the evidence. '
I do not see which evidence would be not fitting. Thanks Mr. Nilsson knowledge, we have at least one good candidate (for both posted photos) where railing inclination respect Mr. Bonomi courses.
There is no evidence not fitting, thus the construct is still plausible. The absence of any different construct should even reinforce it.
No circular argument. The only wrong argument is: 'Mr. Bonomi map was not GPS recorded, therefore it is speculative'.

hans

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Bill Jurens » Wed Jan 29, 2020 7:32 pm

My thanks to all for keeping the discussions thus far reasonably collegial and on-topic. Makes the moderator's job considerably easier. Let's all try to be careful to avoid 'creeping escalation' however -- it can sneak up on a thread in rather subtle fashions.

I suppose what we are discussing here represents a discussion revolving around the limits of how accurately and precisely a reconstruction can be made via interpolation between, and analysis of, a collection of isolated 'snippets' of data, some with rather questionable pedigree. The main problem, of course, is that in the absence of an actual and precise record to which we can compare various reconstructions, there is no real way to tell which reconstruction is the most accurate one, or the degree to which any single reconstruction actually reflects reality.

In the rocket business we often had several engineers using various methods to try to predict performance prior to launch, but the only way to determine which methodology was 'best' was to compare the prediction with actual performance. Without an actual performance record, i.e. in the absence of an actual vehicle launch, it was often more-or-less impossible to determine which prediction, or which predictive technique, was the better one. It's interesting to note that we often ran a 'pool' to determine how a given vehicle would perform after launch, with the winner being the one coming closest to actual vehicle measured performance. Often, the secretaries and accountants in the front office actually did as well as, or better than, the aerodynamics group -- colloquially known as the 'airy-fairy boys' -- did.

Unfortunately, in Denmark Strait, we really have no actual vehicle performance to go by, so -- in the absence of some significant source of new information -- the discussion must always remain essentially an academic one, incapable of formal confirmation.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2105
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by wadinga » Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:21 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Hello Hans

You have said:
If cameraman was the same for the two photos (NH69729 and the one posted by Mr. Nilsson), then emplacement should be on the boat deck.
Can you explain why these photos have to be on the Boat Deck? When short lengths of aft-angled chain rail were all you were looking for, you were quite happy to promote the hinged platform on the midships Main Deck mount. (There is also one on the forward mount.) Now the half height stanchions mean they must be on the Boat Deck. I am still trying to find any half-height stanchions anywhere on the Main Deck. Maybe there are some, but you seem to say there are definitely none.

Looking hard on a zoomed in version of the Philly photos I see your location 1 with an untidy pile of packing cases and what could be chain on both aft-angled and parallel. The intermediate parallel section further forward would maybe have the crane blocking any view outboard, but it does clearly show the half-height stanchions, which is why I believe this is the location Herr Nilsson prefers and which I currently support. It is possible with the crane stowed forward, that the main post, jib and lifting wires would "frame" a shot directly 90 degrees outboard, but be outside the frame of the pictures NH69729 and its sister. Or maybe the prints are cropped to lose this extraneous detail. This section of chained rail is on the centreline orientation and therefore if the photos were taken there, "proves" PG and Bismarck were on 90 angled headings for the duration of the two photographs.

Location 3, whether it has half height stanchions or not, must have the forward stowed jib of the crane right in the way of any photography.

Bill's conclusion that there is not enough information to come up with a definitive reconstruction is almost certainly correct. The availability or non-availability of alternative constructs does not make the existing one more or less likely. The creators of the PG 3D renditions on the web could have put in triple 16" turrets and Exocet missiles and thus produced something immensely detailed and self consistent without a shred of truth in it.
in the absence of some significant source of new information
Well, we live in hope.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by hans zurbriggen » Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:10 pm

Hello,
to Mr. Wadinga writing: "Can you explain why these photos have to be on the Boat Deck? "
Because Mr. Nilsson has posted the second photo, showing the 2 third (not half) stanchion present only AFAIK on boat deck. Before I was looking for chains that are present also on weather deck.
I suspect that place 2 (also on boat deck, see my previous posted image) may have 2 third stanchions too but I have no clear photo to prove. Therefore I have to accept Mr. Nilsson statement that there is only one position.
You perhaps misunderstand Mr. Nilsson: the parallel section has 1 third height stanchions, not 2 third. Mr. Nilssson indicates a position between crane and 105 midship mount, so place 1, not the parallel one, that is fore of crane.
PrinzEugenShortRailings.jpg
PrinzEugenShortRailings.jpg (28.73 KiB) Viewed 382 times

We can agree to disagree that a definitive reconstruction is possible: for me Mr. Bonomi map is a good enough reconstruction, that explains what happened and matches all available information, valid if no alternative and better construct can be build. You and Mr. Jurens may think differently. That is fine with me, but I disagree (see my post to Mr. northcape).

hans

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by pgollin » Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:53 am

hans zurbriggen wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:10 pm

......... We can agree to disagree that a definitive reconstruction is possible: for me Mr. Bonomi map is a good enough reconstruction, that explains what happened and matches all available information, valid if no alternative and better construct can be build. ......


.

That is the same false argument as put forward by some others. Just because one map is put forward by certain people (irrespective of who they are) DOES NOT mean it is correct. It is just one option, with many people believing that there is insufficient information to back up the offered map, and insufficient to produce ANY sort of map claiming to be even vaguely definitive.

An opinion is just that, it is NOT definitive evidence, claiming otherwise is incorrect.

.

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by hans zurbriggen » Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:27 pm

Hello,
to pgollin writing 'Just because one map is put forward by certain people ... DOES NOT mean it is correct. It is just one option'
Then whole history is just opinion. No map of any battle should be drawn. No information about battles development can be accepted as correct.
Fine with me, but I strongly disagree with this argument: there were sufficient informations about Denmark Strait to build a very consistent map that is correct because it matches all available information and is widely accepted. There was nobody capable to propose another different map matching available evidences. This means to me that the built map is more than sufficient to describe what actually happened, lacking another.
I renew my proposal to agree to disagree for this point and calmly continue the analysis of cameraman position.

hans

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by northcape » Fri Jan 31, 2020 6:12 pm

Dear Mr. Zurbriggen/Virtuani
hans zurbriggen wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:27 pm
There was nobody capable to propose another different map matching available evidences. This means to me that the built map is more than sufficient to describe what actually happened, lacking another.
I've created a theory, that based on the measurement of the temperature in my nostrils I can predict that the interior of the moon is made of raspberry jam.

Nobody else proposes an alternative theory to predict the interior of the moon based on temperature measurements inside their nostrils.

So to me, this is sufficient to state that the interior of the moon is made of raspberry jam.

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by hans zurbriggen » Fri Jan 31, 2020 7:13 pm

Hello,
I see many people are more interested to polemics than to ‘determine‘ anything.

I am not.

Hans

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by paul.mercer » Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:39 pm

northcape wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 6:12 pm
Dear Mr. Zurbriggen/Virtuani
hans zurbriggen wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:27 pm
There was nobody capable to propose another different map matching available evidences. This means to me that the built map is more than sufficient to describe what actually happened, lacking another.
I've created a theory, that based on the measurement of the temperature in my nostrils I can predict that the interior of the moon is made of raspberry jam.

Nobody else proposes an alternative theory to predict the interior of the moon based on temperature measurements inside their nostrils.

So to me, this is sufficient to state that the interior of the moon is made of raspberry jam.

Gentlemen,
At the risk of being rude, "Opinions are like a......., everybody has one" (Clint Eastwood, 'Dirty Harry)
It would seem that this debate is going nowhere, except downhill into farce with no-one being able to pinpoint the exact location or time, perhaps it would be better to find something else to talk about?
PS, if the interior of the moon really is made of raspberry jam please book me on the next flight!

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:09 am

The 'raspberry jam' metaphor, though I think intended to illustrate the FORM of a given argument rather than it's content, does not seem to have gone over very well. Perhaps we might rephrase it using "Mean Temperature in London, England" instead of nostril temperature, and "Number of births in Paris" instead of 'raspberry jam'.

The problem, of course, lies in deciding to what degree one can rely upon certain proposed linkages. In that regard, one is reminded of the old saw, "correlation is not causation', i.e. that things that may appear to be linked in some way may not actually be linked at all. Similarly, one can create any number of proposed scenarios which are not logically impossible, or even improbable, e.g. "An eight-year old boy is shot by police whilst in the process of robbing a bank." That doesn't mean they actually happened.

The idea that because any single hypothesis is commonly accepted, or the only one so-far proposed, or even the most complex and detailed, while it remains an attractive and apparent solution in many cases, need be approached with considerable skepticism. I am reminded of a variety of complex and intricate explanations, many written by scholars of considerable authority, regarding exactly what keeps the sun going. In 1910, many had pretty good and rather well worked through hypotheses on this, but in the end, knowing virtually nothing about fusion reactions, it turns out they hadn't a clue. In the case of Denmark Strait, we have claims that one specific reconstruction, in the absence of alternatives, can therefore be taken as the default. Actually, at least as I see it, there actually ARE a variety of alternative hypotheses being presented, but they have not been worked out in as great detail as the one we are talking about, and -- I suppose almost by definition -- consider the reconstruction(s) proposed by Mr. Bonomi as -- perhaps not significantly defective, but at least highly speculative. In that regard, it should also be noted that the pure degree of effort put into constructing a given hypothesis makes no necessary contributions to its validity. A small child, for example, might examine an internal-combustion engine for hours, days, and even potentially years without arriving at any meaningful hypotheses about exactly how the thing actually works.

These are just my opinions, of course, and not to be considered as some sort of 'moderator's judgement on the issues.

What I will say, as moderator, is that we are, as I feared we might, seem to now be slipping into rather argumentative tones and ad-hominem slights. Msssrs. Mercer and Mr. Zurbriggen may be correct in their suggestions, if I interpret them correctly, that we should either return to more technically focused issues, or perhaps -- at least until some significant new information becomes available -- abandon the discussion entirely, as being to all intents and purposes, being, at least via this forum, currently not-resolvable. We must just agree to disagree. Without being disagreeABLE.

Comments welcome.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2105
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by wadinga » Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:08 pm

Fellow Contributors,

I agree with the sentiments expressed and wish to concentrate on evidence in the photographs themselves, without expending effort on selenian confitures.

I am quite happy with Hans' search for handrail locations, few or perhaps non-existent as they may be, purely to justify the orientation of the vessels as depicted in one speculative scenario of the action. My point has always been that since such locations are a tiny fraction of the whole handrail environment of the vessel, if they exist at all, then the strong likelihood is that the vessels are at right angles to one another. It is illogical to argue that there is such a location, solely because the speculative scenario says there must be one. I know that despite the detailed investigation carried out by the originator of the speculative scenario, neither he nor his most vehement supporter was never able to show such a location, and thus preferred to ignore the evidence of the photos.

Hans' efforts have already thrown up interesting points, specifically that of the "parallel" location where the short stanchions appear to only rise to one third of the total height ie not as shown in the photo of Bismarck approaching. As someone who has worked aboard ship I struggle to see the safety value of retaining one chain support at shin level, if the upper two chains are temporarily removed. It may be to allow easier access to the torpedo body transfer track. Or it may be that due to painting, dirt or shadow these short stanchions appear shorter than they actually are.

At least half of location 1 is parallel to the ship's keel as shown in the zoomed example, and even if it is speculated that the "desired" aft-facing chain rail exists hidden against the packing crates, the photo POV must still somehow exclude the stowed paravane bodies, the torpedo transfer rail and the midships mount itself from the photo. Perhaps by cropping. One can suspect all one likes about location 2's handrails but there might be a stowed boat and the crane's jib limiting outboard views.

There is considerable effort being spent to find a metre or two of the required "aft-facing" chain somewhere, anywhere on the ship, but Occam's Razor suggests the chained rail, wherever it is, is more likely to be parallel to the ship's keel. If anybody is bored with discussing the evidence in these photos, why not start a more "interesting" thread someplace else? This study is progressing nicely and providing value as long as it does not turn into "Antonio's absolutely right and everyone else should just shut up unless they are going to produce their own comprehensive (but equally speculative) scenario!"

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

Post Reply